Debate contribution: Literacy Development
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Givan
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 29 September 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Literacy Development
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5139193
Read the official Assembly record
Text
While schools will hold their own rich data on pupils' progress and attainment, our system has limited publicly available national data on how children are performing in literacy throughout primary school and Key Stage 3. End of Key Stage assessment arrangements were not widely operational from 2014-15 right through until 2023-24, but, in the 2024-25 academic year, we saw a return of end of Key Stage assessments for the first time since the COVID-19 pandemic. Assessments were based on teacher judgement against the levels of progression in communication and in using mathematics. That gave us a clearer understanding of where our education system stands following the challenges of recent years. The data published by CCEA shows that nearly three in 10 pupils are not achieving at the expected levels in literacy and numeracy by the end of primary school. That is a significant concern, particularly as those foundational skills are essential for pupils' future learning, well-being and life opportunities. It is also a stark reminder of the challenges that we face, and it highlights the urgent need for a renewed focus on literacy and numeracy in our schools. The new data provides a vital baseline for informing targeted support and future interventions.
202 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.02 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.81).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.81 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.94 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.06 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:18 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.